Category Archives: Legal fictions

In my recent video presentation “Adask on Sovereignty,” I argued that the Founding Fathers created a nation where each of the people were deemed to be an individual “sovereign”. That individual sovereignty was achieved by virtue of having received our “unalienable Rights” from God—as declared in “Declaration of Independence”.

I supported this argument, with text from the A.D. 1793 Supreme Court case of Chisholm vs. Georgia which declared in part that after the American Revolution, the American people became “sovereigns [plural] without subjects”.

If my argument is right, We the People are individual sovereigns and the government is our public servant. If my argument is wrong, We the People are subjects and the government is our master. The argument is important.

In the aftermath of the first article (“Adask on Sovereignty”) a number of readers disputed my argument based on the fact that the Supreme Court also described the people are “joint tenants in the sovereignty”. According to these readers the definition(s) of “joint tenants” prove that the Supreme Court did not declare the people to be individual “sovereigns” (plural) but instead confided all sovereignty to a single “collective” of which we are each a member, but only as subjects—never as sovereigns.

In an article entitled “Kerry: Internet, Instant Communication Making It much Harder to Govern,” Antiwar.com reports that:

“Speaking today [August 14th, A.D. 2013] to officials at the US Embassy in Brasilia, Secretary of State John Kerry delivered comments about the ‘hardships’ facing US diplomacy, saying that a major problem was ‘this little thing called the Internet.’

“Referencing the Internet and ‘the ability of people everywhere to communicate instantaneously,’ Kerry lamented ‘it makes it much harder to govern, makes it much harder to organize people.’”

If I hired an attorney to represent me, I should be able to fire that attorney whenever I pleased. Likewise, if you hired an attorney to represent you, then you should be able to fire that attorney whenever you pleased. But, clearly, if you hired an attorney to represent you, I would have no authority to fire your attorney.

In the video below, a man attempts to fire “his” attorney. The attorney says he’s been appointed by the judge and therefore only the judge can terminate his employment.

How is it that a man who is seemingly represented by an attorney, can’t fire what appears to be his own attorney?

Could it be that the attorney does not actually represent the man (whose proper name is, say, “John Ingress”) and who is the apparent defendant? Could it be that the attorney instead represents an artificial entity (a legal fiction or “strawman” who bears the all-upper case name like “JOHN INGRESS”) and who is the actual defendant?